On 08/28/2013 10:41 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:13:09AM -0400, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote: >> Sorry to come out of left field like this, but would the system profile >> info we collect on install be useful in determining the weight of the >> need for some of these drivers? For example, if there is still a bunch >> of SIS video adapters out there, we might prioritize support for that >> driver, but then not for others that don't show-up in our hardware surveys. > > Another way to look at it is the platform capabilities of these graphics > devices. For example, Fedora 19's release notes claims a minimum of 1GB > RAM is required. Were there any pre-PCIe platforms capable of > supporting this much RAM? Plenty! The common limitation in the pre-PCIe era was 2GB or 4GB (e.g., common 32-bit architecture memory limits). I have several that are non-PCIe and have 2GB of RAM. They run Fedora just fine. They do, however, have more modern AGP-based video cards installed, however. I haven't bothered with the embedded video adapter on them, so I cannot speak to their suitability for running Fedora 19. > > Ditto on the embedded graphics (eg SiS or i810 etc) -- many of those > platforms had serious RAM limitations too. I have a pile of old P4+i845 > boxes stacked in a corner that max out at 512MB (due to chipset > limitations) which isn't even enough RAM to boot the Fedora installer in > text mode. > > On the other hand, graphics chips that were available on PCI add-in > cards could theoretically be used on modern systems, so those may be > worth continuing to support. > > - Solomon I just wanted to comment about the memory issue. I cannot say much else about the rest here. -- Libre Video http://librevideo.org -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
